Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
Left and right refer to perspectives on the role of governance, with the left tending towards the government as the embodiment of the people having full control over all aspects of life and the social order, while the “right” tends towards diminishing the role of government to only that which is required in terms of security against outside threat.

Conservative and liberal refer to perspectives concerning values, with conservatives claiming that values inhere in reality and thus must be understood and conserved, while liberals claim values and perspectives evolve and change through time and thus we must always be open to new ways of acting and thinking in the world.
Click to expand...
So, in one area you’re a proponent of hair-splitting yet here you generalize persons as if the definition of conservative and liberal was taken from the Book of Life.

This is nicely pre-packaged in a pigeon holed sense. The liberal or left leaner (makes no difference to me) can be extremely conservative on certain social issues such as abortion. A liberal can appreciate “small government” based on the sound concept of subsidiarity, and in line with the same concept appreciate when “bigger government” has needed to step in and be big brother to regulate an exploitation. A “free market” can only be as good as it causes no harm, so a liberal can fall entirely in line with Rerum Novarum in the area of economics where regulation within a juridical framework is viewed as positive. A liberal can appreciate G. K. Chesterton that there is not too much capitalism, there are too few capitalists as evidenced by monopolies that dominate commerce. Large is not better when Super Pacs or big money (Kock brothers) can drive policy that should be driven by democracy.

A liberal can determine that charity doesn’t come with strings. That giving a beggar a piece of bread or a few dollars is better than a 50 page discussion on where the money you give will go. When you give from the heart (charity) you let God sort out the rest. The focus within Scripture wasn’t what the beggar did with the alm given him, it was on the righteousness of the heart that gave it.
 
DENNYINMI said:
The focus within Scripture wasn’t what the beggar did with the alm given him, it was on the righteousness of the heart that gave it.
Click to expand...
So, the “righteousness of the heart that gave it” has nothing to do with the actual ends or goods that come about, but merely with the good feelings engendered within the heart that feels it is now “righteous” merely because it gave, not because of any actual good that comes about?

So righteousness has nothing to do with outcomes or bringing about objective good in the world, merely about feeling good within oneself?

I see.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
I am concerned that the civility level of this thread is spiraling out of control, please everyone watch your tone and focus on the issues at hand. I know what I was getting into when discussing politics but I rather would appreciate just having engaging discussion. I think I have my answer now (multiple answers actually) and see that people have disagreements (which can spiral out). @Camoderator, if you feel this needs ot be closed, I don’t blame you.
Click to expand...
Are you certain you are talking about actual civility, actual respect, or merely about maintaining politically correct etiquette so as to not disturb the acceptable narrative?

 
HarryStotle said:
So, the “righteousness of the heart that gave it” has nothing to do with the actual ends or goods that come about, but merely with the good feelings engendered within the heart that feels it is now “righteous” merely because it gave, not because of any actual good that comes about?

So righteousness has nothing to do with outcomes or bringing about objective good in the world, merely about feeling good within oneself?

I see.
Click to expand...
The assumption that righteousness of the heart brings about one “feeling good”.

Let it be pointed out to you Christ our Lord pointed out the righteousness of the tax collector as he beat his breast and called out to God as a sinner…nothing of a self absorbed righteous conceit is noted there.

Righteousness does not equate to “feel good” mentality.

Last I checked, it was a good thing. The Gospel doesn’t point out any happily ever after for the man that was given an alm, it does however to the one who gave…tis better to give than to receive, eh?
 
Mainly the tone of the conversation (I understand these types of talks get heated) as well as the fact that this is becoming a political slugfest (I know this is a political thread but still, polite and civil talk please).
 
DENNYINMI said:
Large is not better when Super Pacs or big money (Kock brothers) can drive policy that should be driven by democracy.
Click to expand...
Why should policy be DRIVEN by democracy?

Why should the current whims or appetites of the majority DRIVE policy?

Why shouldn’t policy be driven by thoughtful dialogue and a clear view of what is good?

Or are you claiming that the democratic majority is at all times absolutely clear and infallible with regard to its own well-being?

I would even doubt that the infinitely compromised good for the hypothetical majority is necessarily the good for all, or even any, of the individuals that make up that fiction called “the majority.”

So perhaps the system of governance ought to reduce as much as possible the whims of the majority and permit individuals to work out their own vision of what is good without interference from this hypothetical and authoritarian clan known as the “majority?”

Isn’t that what the Constitution of the United States actually attempts to preserve in the face of what is the inherent menace of government?

Where does God or God’s will enter into this discussion at all?

Let me guess: we cannot know God’s will so we are left to our own devices.

Is that your position?

Do you prefer to be slave to the whims of the “majority” rather than be fully responsible for your own destiny?

That would be the leftist or socialist view which you claim is indistinguishable from the libertarian or even liberal one.

Which they clearly are not unless, of course, you freely and willingly turn over your own autonomy to the socialist state. Then, I can see how you can so easily conflate leftism or socialism with liberalism or libertarianism, because at the point your autonomy has been entirely turned over to the state and your choices are identical to the choices made by the state.

But then your God, the God who determines everything about your life, is the State.
 
Both sides, please watch your tone. People from BOTH sides of the fence.
 
HarryStotle said:
Why should policy be DRIVEN by democracy?
Click to expand...
Because as a United States citizen I do not believe that a super pac , the Kock brothers, the NRA or any other faction or lobby has interests that should outweigh a vote, and neither do I believe that any candidate should have more clout than another due to the amount of money that is thrown his/her way.

Large is not better when Super Pacs or big money (Kock brothers) can drive policy that should be driven by democracy.……………That was my quote, I stand by it.
 
Last edited:
DENNYINMI said:
Last I checked, it was a good thing. The Gospel doesn’t point out any happily ever after for the man that was given an alm, it does however to the one who gave…tis better to give than to receive, eh?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (1 Cor 13:3)

So without love, giving isn’t necessarily better than receiving, because both are useless.

What is love?

According to Church teaching, it means to act for the good of the one loved, and the ultimate good (true happiness) for every human being is union with the source of all that is good, aka God.

1723 …true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love…

So giving that which leads others away from God, from their true and final good, is not necessarily better than not giving, even if it makes us feel all warm and righteous inside.

If you have children you know this is true. Is it better to “give” candy to a child, or to always give what the child wants, merely because it is “better to give than to receive?”

Yeah, no.

Knowledge or understanding is knowing what is true. Wisdom is acting on that knowledge.

Giving absent knowledge and wisdom is giving devoid of love and profits nothing.
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Why should policy be DRIVEN by democracy?
Click to expand...
Because as a United States citizen I do not believe that a super pac , the Kock brothers, the NRA or any other faction or lobby has interests that should outweigh a vote, and neither do I believe that any candidate should have more clout than another due to the amount of money that is thrown his/her way.

Large is not better when Super Pacs or big money (Kock brothers) can drive policy that should be driven by democracy.……………That was my quote, I stand by it.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s the Koch brothers, not the Kock brothers, and you should, at least, get the facts straight before you use them to make serious practical decisions.

You should also have some perspective regarding how much actual SuperPac money and money from the super rich goes into both parties before you come down hard on only one side regarding that issue.

Half truths, or even smaller fractions of truths, amount to false impressions.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Now, Islam is not a skin colour, it is an ideological perspective, so we would expect some homogeneity of thought.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know much about Islam. That’s like saying Christians across all countries and denominations experience “homogeneity of thought.”
HarryStotle said:
Perhaps it is some deep-seated prejudice (the proclivity to make judgements based on a paucity of evidence or none at all, along with a lack of willingness to think deeply about reality, I.e., not split hairs) that prevents you from honestly asking or wondering why those behaviours occur more frequently among some groups than others.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the “no, YOU’RE the real bigot!” mode of argument.
HarryStotle said:
To be clear, this is where your lack of hair splitting skills gets you into trouble.
Click to expand...
You don’t actually know what that term means, do you?
 
Last edited:
Sales tax, property tax, yes.

People living at the poverty line and below do not pay Federal Income Tax. I should have “defined my tax”.
 
It’s really not. You have a problem with the Koran that is also present in the Bible. Do you also disagree with the Bible’s command to stone gay people? Have you ever criticized it on this forum?
 
Last edited:
Scott_Milso said:
Let’s compare the percentage of Catholics who behead homosexuals and stone sexually permissive females to the percentage of Muslims that behead homosexuals and stone women.
Click to expand...
Do you know the percentages?
 
I could compile the numbers if I had time.
Do you presume them to be the same?
If you had to venture an educated guess would you say they are the same?
If not which would you presume to be higher?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top